Campaign Strategies for Activist Issues

contents

agenda

This session will essentially look at three different aspects of combining AID and activism.

1. Which kinds of issues does AID want/need to get involved in?

   Lets face it, we all volunteer for AID. Our work with AID is usually competing with other personal commitments. So, the question we will be addressing in this session is do we need/want to concentrate on issues beyond fundraising for projects, reviewing projects, interacting with out current projects, seeking new projects?

   My personal feeling is: Yes, as an organization interested in India's development, we need to look at macro issues and micro issues. Along with projects we also need to look at systemic issues that need repair. I look at it as an issue of social justice for all. But, where, when, how much, for what issues do we participate in: the Orrisa Cyclone, the Kargil War, Narmada Dam, Enron, Ogden, Kinara Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Bhopal Gas Tragedy, nuclear testing. . .the list can go on.

2. What if there is disagreement on the relevance of the issue vis-à-vis development?

   This is an important and fairly contentious issues. Passions run high on what people feel, we as an organization should indorse. The way I look at this is usually to try and see how we as AID reacted to Kargil, Narmada SSP dam and the Orissa Cyclone all of which occurred around the same time.

3. Do we get involved at a Chapter wide-levels or simply at individual levels?

Finally, is there a need to have a protocol on how to work on such issues? What about signing petitions? Fundraising, how much, how little?

Questions? Suggestions? Please send them to the moderator Mora Oommen.

minutes

The participants at the session were

• Albany: Vinod
• Ann Arbor: Nishant, John
• Boston: Mora, Rajesh, Vinay
• Cincinatti: Satya
• Columbus: Shreesunder
• Maryland: Manoj
• Minnesota: Archana
• Raleigh: Prashant
• Sankalp, Ames: Abu
• State College: Shailabh, Raghuram, Vamsi

The participants introduced themselves and explained their interest in the session.

Mora, Manoj and Vinay have been involved with the NBA and the Bhopal issue for a while.

Nishant believes that the spirit of activism is missing in AID. The Ann Arbor chapter had organized a protest against the dam being constructed in the Narmada valley. They had good response from the community members. Local papers had shown their interest in the issue and called for more information. They also received good support from the non-Indian community in Ann Arbor.

Rajesh believes that AID is going to be effective only if it takes a more activist role. Satya agreed that we should continue to be involved in projects but make sure our role doesn't end there. Abu felt that an activist stand can involve policy making also.

Shreesunder remarked that one has to be really well read and really understand the issues before taking a stance. When an organization takes a stance it can create factions. In fact, one should pay attention to the mechanism through which the organization takes a stand since the very mechanism might be faulty and could cause splits. John agreed and felt it may not be a good idea for AID to assume an activist role. Especially because AID has so many opinionated people.

Archana mentioned that the MN chapter has strong pro- and anti-dam supporters. As a result they have let the issue aside for now. She was not sure if they could continue to ignore a stance that corresponds so closely to AID's ideology.

Prashant said that in his chapter opinion about the NBA was divided. He wanted to find out more details about AID would take a stand on different issues. He felt that most petitions start out because of one persons personal interest in the matter and soon involve the entire CSH. Too much time might be wasted in discussions instead of the members concentrating on development projects.

Raghu was initially against AID's involvement with the NBA. He felt that a minority within the chapter might be marginalized. Also outsiders may start associating AID only with NBA, ignoring the work it does in other areas.

Vamsi initially felt that we might lose our community support base if we move into activist roles. If there were 10 different issues, could we afford to take stands on each of them losing some members each time? Wasn't there enough non-controversial work that could be done? However, in conversations with Aniruddha and mails from Balaji he realized that even simple projects that we support do result in friction in villages when they are implemented. Savings groups could upset the local money lender etc. Has come to the conclusion that activism is a part of what AID has to be involved in whether it is at the level of NBA or something that we don't usually see.

Shailabh agreed with most of what Vamsi said. His interest lay in finding out how to address the problem of alienation that might be caused by taking a stand. Also, even if we take a stand, what exactly does it mean since we have limited resources at our disposal? Is it merely a personal choice?

Aniruddha said that organization level stands would be done democratically. Each chapter would be able to state its decision with the majority opinion prevailing. However, he was concerned about what this meant personally and what causes would a member recognize.

Archana felt that people feel marginalized when their voice is not being heard. Was it possible to have an AID wide referundum instead of chapter voting?

Manoj remarked that a lot has been learnt since the first petition was circulated and that people seem to have settled on activism on a more personal level. We had AID fellows like Aravinda, who were more activist and interacted closely with the NBA. We also had fellows like Balaji who is more involved with the TNSF etc. However, we no longer feel like they are contradictory roles.

Mora mentioned that several people refrained from taking a stand claiming they did not know enough. She felt it is wrong to ignore the issues, one has to take concrete measures to move forward and deal with it.

Aniruddha gave examples of the different activist issues that had come up the last year:

• Bhopal, Narmada
• support for human rights in Orissa
• Umbergaon/Maroli port project
• Sahyog survey about AIDS cases in UP

Participants then discussed the main advantages of taking a stand.

• the more we discuss, the more we learn
• activists in the field feel encouraged
• AID's opinion might affect other peoples opinion
• AID fellows in India could work actively on projects that we support

Where should we go in the future?

• to ensure that community and volunteer support is not lost when we take a stand, chapters need to understand that AID's approach is holistic and how activism is a part of what we have to do
• we should not take a stance unless we understand what it means
• we have to look at past projects and see how activism played a part
• should take a stand if it conflicts with AID's core philosophy

If people don't read how can we get them to reach a conclusion? Should they finally trust someone who has read up on the issue?

• main turn off is badly written petitions with lack of information
• when writing a petition, write a complete one backed by research
• with links to relevant material that can be accessed
• instead of waiting for the conflict to arise, can take stand preemptively. Keep track of what is happening and as you learn might be able to take a stand (e.g. Cogentrix? Mora clarify?? )

Decided to have a website continuing the discussion, with pointers to good petition writing. Maybe we can organize a speaker series on these topics and discuss literature related to it.

Some material to start off with:

• Dammed Future, In the Name of Development - The Indian Peoples Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights

Minutes recorded by Vamsi Veeramachaneni